Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by mmiichael


mmiichael, my main concern wasn't with the ignition temperatures. My concern was with the argument that the ignition temperature is one of the characteristics by which we can try to discover what was the most advanced technologies in 2001, yet the figure being used (540C) is 290C off from what I found (250C). (Assuming of course that the lower the temperature the more advanced the technology, but I gather that's the point he/she was trying to make).

You bring up a good point though about the aging... would this material get stronger with age? or weaker? My instinct says weaker, but that's just off the top of my head. But the aging question also brings to my head the idea, that, yes, we should be absolutely sure. So maybe we should take up a collection so we can all collectively purchase a Bic lighter and smuggle it to a NIST underling so he/she can see if the primer paint still does not ignite at 430C after all these years. (Just to drive this point home again)

"There still remains the questions regarding the propose materials actual effectiveness" This is fine, but I think that's the hard way to go about things. Last night I used hairspray in a way that it was never intended to be used. But the simple fact that a can of hairspray is found in my possession does not necessarily mean that you can say how it's been put to use, nor how effective it is in this unknown use. I'll give anybody here three guesses... or five... or ten... or a hundred.

So to me it's more important to concentrate on whether the material in question is actually that being proposed.

Edited to add: "nor how effective it is in this unknown use"



[edit on 22-7-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Wow, sorry, that's a little too vague for me to even go near. Care to be a little more specific or even to quantify that with anything?

There is nothing "mundane" about why that door is not still standing. You talk like you see this stuff every day.

I was quoting you. That was your term. Why don't YOU quantify it?

Why should I believe you? Show how much force would be needed to crumple the door first. Then we can discuss whether or not it was a mundane occurance.

Otherwise, your statement is from personal incredulity and means nothing.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I was quoting you. That was your term. Why don't YOU quantify it?

The definition of the amount of force I'm referring to is the force required to "crumple" a steel and concrete fire door, as if it were a piece of aluminum. It's not a number, but a number wouldn't mean any more to you anyway, so just bear with it for a few seconds of consideration, is all I ask.

You say a deflagration (I assume from the impacts? and a fireball going down the elevator shafts? correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) could have done the damage. You mean the same deflagration that didn't blow out all the windows on the floors the fireball came out of, but which mostly de-pressurized there anyway, is going to travel through 1000 feet of shafts, and cause even more extreme damage than it did at the impact site? Or maybe you are saying the deflagration was from something else, I don't know.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by turbofan


I commend your effort to inform us. Thanks.

reply to post by Seventh


In addition, there is no way to build pressure with a big hole at the top
of the structure.

This "air pressure" myth is sooooooo not well thought out.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The definition of the amount of force I'm referring to is the force required to "crumple" a steel and concrete fire door, as if it were a piece of aluminum. It's not a number,

You say a deflagration (I assume from the impacts? and a fireball going down the elevator shafts? correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) could have done the damage. You mean the same deflagration that didn't blow out all the windows on the floors the fireball came out of, but which mostly de-pressurized there anyway, is going to travel through 1000 feet of shafts, and cause even more extreme damage than it did at the impact site? Or maybe you are saying the deflagration was from something else, I don't know.

But it should be a number. To get this, you need info about the door. 300 lbs of concrete really isn't that much. What kind of door was it - hinged? sliding? how big were the screws/attachments? How much would it take to break those? How much velocity would the door have to have in order to crumple it? How was the door constructed? 22 ga sheetmetal over 1" of concrete inside? Rebar? How big was it? Where was it in relation to the elevator shafts? What kind of overpressure can be expected from a deflag and at what distance?How much from a bomb/cutter charge and at what distance? etc.... These need to be researched before the leap to (I'm presuming) bombs can be used to become the most likely explanation. And that's the point I was making. Without this research, it's nothing but speculation and incredulity. That won't hold much water with any educated person.

I don't know that the entire flame needs to travel the entire shaft. Fuel was dumped down them during the crash. There's plenty of witness statements to this so I don't think it's debateable. So if there's fuel there, and an ignition source - maybe from the impacts of the falling elevators or sparking electrics, etc... then a second deflag could have originated down in the bottom. BTW, there's a reasonable explanation to the windows at the impact level not being blown out too. The poster above me makes the point that it's hard to make pressure when there's a giant hole. I'd agree, especially if it's pretty close. Like from the plane impacts. At the bottom, the giant hole is 1000' away, and so any deflag would have to accelerate that column of air that far in order to depressurize enough to prevent any amount of overpressure at the bottom. Not likely.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But it should be a number.

Either you aren't yet aware of what kind equations you are talking about solving, or you don't get what those equations are going to tell you. You can find the numbers if you want, it's your theory of fireballs traveling down shafts, but it's obvious to me it isn't going to do more damage 1000+ feet away than it did at the impact site.

300 lbs of concrete really isn't that much.

Depends on what you need it for or what you're trying to do to it, doesn't it?

What kind of door was it - hinged? sliding? how big were the screws/attachments? How much would it take to break those? How much velocity would the door have to have in order to crumple it? How was the door constructed? 22 ga sheetmetal over 1" of concrete inside? Rebar? How big was it? Where was it in relation to the elevator shafts? What kind of overpressure can be expected from a deflag and at what distance?How much from a bomb/cutter charge and at what distance? etc....

Those are all questions you are asking the wrong person and are irrelevant imo. Actually the only really relevant question to me is the "velocity" required to crumple a steel and concrete door, because that is going to require a lot more energy than failing the bolts/connections, which are usually relatively weak and go first. But the door wasn't just blown off its hinges, which is why there was obviously a lot more energy than just what was necessary to fail its connections.

These need to be researched before the leap to (I'm presuming) bombs can be used to become the most likely explanation.

No, all that needs to be shown is that you have no ready explanation for it. That something currently unknown to us provided additional energy at that place and at that time. It's not OUR responsibility to do a criminal investigation, remember? We pay our taxes, when Congress commissioned an investigation, our tax money went to it, and this particular issue was not seriously investigated. There is plenty of other witness testimony to go along with this as I'm sure you're probably already aware, at least to some extent.

I don't know that the entire flame needs to travel the entire shaft.

This further shows that you don't really know what you're talking about. The overpressure is what would have had to travel, and a deflagration does not have a very strong overpressure. In fact I don't think it technically meets the definition of "overpressure," but I could be mistaken on that. Either way it is not an explosion, and can't destroy steel and concrete doors, especially 1000+ feet away from its origin. How do I know it wouldn't be strong enough to destroy a door like that? Because I have experienced higher-velocity detonations in my hand and it didn't even pierce my skin.

I should probably tell you I have absolutely no expectation whatsoever to change you in your opinion. I know you will find whatever will satisfy you to believe these questions don't really need answers, that they don't really matter and *probably* have "reasonable" answers to them anyway. That's what everyone says, and when enough of you say the same thing, apparently they questions DON'T matter and no one WILL ever answer them. I guess my only point in being here and bickering with you like this is to agitate you in a way, because there are tons of holes in your beliefs, and things like this that don't make any sense at all. And you CAN'T really provide an answer for them. There's absolutely nothing you can personally do about it.

Fuel was dumped down them during the crash. There's plenty of witness statements to this so I don't think it's debateable. So if there's fuel there, and an ignition source - maybe from the impacts of the falling elevators or sparking electrics, etc... then a second deflag could have originated down in the bottom.

Even if it did it's still not an explosive. I still don't think you know what a "deflagration" is. It is a sub-sonic (meaning less than 1500 ft/s) pressure. It is not a fuel-air explosive. I have made higher velocity "bombs" out of plastic bottles and accidentally had them explode in my hand. It was extremely painful and caused a bad ringing in my ears for a while but it didn't even pierce the skin on my hand. Plastic bottles actually explode with a velocity of about 2000 ft/s. And you are saying an equally slow detonation could destroy a steel and concrete door. I say bullocks to you, but you are certainly free to believe what you want. You just don't know what you're talking about. It also takes specific ratios of fuel to air and trying to ignite liquid fuel isn't going to cut it but that's even harder to explain.

BTW, there's a reasonable explanation to the windows at the impact level not being blown out too. The poster above me makes the point that it's hard to make pressure when there's a giant hole. I'd agree, especially if it's pretty close. Like from the plane impacts. At the bottom, the giant hole is 1000' away, and so any deflag would have to accelerate that column of air that far in order to depressurize enough to prevent any amount of overpressure at the bottom. Not likely.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It's obvious that pressure inside the building would have sought to equalize without outside atmospheric air pressure, yeah, but that IS de-pressurizing. It doesn't take effort for built-up air pressure to equalize with it's surroundings, it's entropy and the law of thermodynamics, taking the path of least resistance to reach equilibrium. I don't see how you're using this to justify a massive air pressure moving all the way down into the basements. You should have just stuck with the idea that a whole new deflagration occurred in the basements/lobby level. That would be more believable but it still doesn't make any sense, since a deflagration is not an explosion.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by Seventh

 

In addition, there is no way to build pressure with a big hole at the top
of the structure.

This "air pressure" myth is sooooooo not well thought out.

My favourite not to well thought out explanation is what caused the explosions, especially with the huge chunk that was housing the antenna, it was clearly seen to tilt then boooooom vaporised, pressurised cans of coke in vending machines are serious business, or maybe someone`s can of deodorant .

reply to post by bsbray11


Sorry, but your post is too long for me to quote witout exceeding my character limit.

1-"Either you aren't yet aware of what kind equations you are talking about solving, or you don't get what those equations are going to tell you. You can find the numbers if you want"

So you don't know. Ok.

2-"it's your theory of fireballs traveling down shafts"

No it isn't. I gave an alternate, so don't misrepresent my statements.

3- "Those are all questions you are asking the wrong person and are irrelevant imo."

They're relevant. If I saw that you did the research to know how much it would take to break hinges, etc, then I might be impressed about your sincerity about "the truth".

4- "Actually the only really relevant question to me is the "velocity" required to crumple a steel and concrete door"

Exactly. And to know whether or not a deflag is possible/impossible to account for this, then someone should do them.

5-"No, all that needs to be shown is that you have no ready explanation for it."

I did, but you misrepresented my argument and then shot it down.

6-"The overpressure is what would have had to travel, and a deflagration does not have a very strong overpressure."

And you're misrepresenting what I proposed again. Please address what I said. If you feel that there couldn't be an ignition source in the basements, then just say it.

7-"It is a sub-sonic (meaning less than 1500 ft/s) pressure."

Exactly right. Now, if the door is say 3' x 6' , that's about 2600 sq in that the overpressure was acting against. 1 psi = 2600 lbs hitting it at 1500ft/s, right? And that's why I asked about the hinges, etc. If you knew this, then you could figure it out. If you knew where it was inrelation to the elevator shafts, you could figure it out. If you knew a typical overpressure of this type of fuel deflag, you could figure it out.

8-"You should have just stuck with the idea that a whole new deflagration occurred in the basements/lobby level."

Ah, ok. You didn't understand my previous post. This is exactly what I meant when i said, "So if there's fuel there, and an ignition source - maybe from the impacts of the falling elevators or sparking electrics, etc... then a second deflag could have originated down in the bottom."


Maybe we should start over?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
1-"Either you aren't yet aware of what kind equations you are talking about solving, or you don't get what those equations are going to tell you. You can find the numbers if you want"

So you don't know. Ok.

I don't know the number that would quantify that force, you are correct. It would be damned near impossible to figure out just by looking at the door and finding those numbers would have nothing to do with MY theory anyway, because there is no question that there are bombs/etc. (ANY source of additional energy) that will destroy doors, while the same cannot be said of a slow-moving fireball. But again I don't think you understand what you are talking about.

2-"it's your theory of fireballs traveling down shafts"

No it isn't. I gave an alternate, so don't misrepresent my statements.

You mean that a second fireball occurred in the basements?

They're relevant. If I saw that you did the research to know how much it would take to break hinges, etc, then I might be impressed about your sincerity about "the truth".

If I saw that you were actually trying to visualize this stuff in your head and think about the logistics of it, thus avoiding the need to crank out all the numbers to tell you the exact same thing, then I would be more impressed with YOU. Btw I DO have experience with having to do these sorts of things, because I am an EE major, and do you know how many pages of calculations it takes to analyze a series-parallel, transient capacitive/inductive circuit? Way too many, when you can just look at it and instantly see the relevant information.

4- "Actually the only really relevant question to me is the "velocity" required to crumple a steel and concrete door"

Exactly. And to know whether or not a deflag is possible/impossible to account for this, then someone should do them.

Ok, be my guest.

But I already told you once I've had worse explode in my hand and didn't even pierce my skin. Don't believe me? Good, you don't have to. Look up "deflagration." The definition. What is it? Sub-sonic velocity. Look up how much force a plastic bottle explodes with. What is it? About 2000 ft/s. Not enough pressure to pierce skin, but you'd have to take my word on that, wouldn't you? So, hopefully it isn't TOO hard for you to believe a plastic bottle can't destroy a steel and concrete door.

7-"It is a sub-sonic (meaning less than 1500 ft/s) pressure."

Exactly right. Now, if the door is say 3' x 6' , that's about 2600 sq in that the overpressure was acting against. 1 psi = 2600 lbs hitting it at 1500ft/s, right? And that's why I asked about the hinges, etc. If you knew this, then you could figure it out. If you knew where it was inrelation to the elevator shafts, you could figure it out. If you knew a typical overpressure of this type of fuel deflag, you could figure it out.

Tell me what deflagration is going to produce velocities faster than the speed of sound. The answer is "none," because deflagrations are too slow. What I'm wondering at this point in time is how many times I will have to repeat this before it sinks in and you shut up about this ridiculous theory.


How many plastic bottles do you think you'd have to set up next to that steel and concrete door, and explode all at the same time, in order to crumple it up?

[edit on 23-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Tell me what deflagration is going to produce velocities faster than the speed of sound. The answer is "none," because deflagrations are too slow.

What I'm wondering at this point in time is how many times I will have to repeat this before it sinks in and you shut up about this ridiculous theory.

How many plastic bottles do you think you'd have to set up next to that steel and concrete door, and explode all at the same time, in order to crumple it up?

Exactly. None would. Why do you claim it necessary for it to be anything faster? Are you saying that a forklift, since it's slower, couldn't break down the door since it's too slow? All that matters is overpressure to do the breaking of the hinges. It's a simple concept. Velocity is needed to "fling" the door after it's broken its hinges. There's 2 steps there, ok?

That's rude. Be civil.

I don't know. Do you? It seems that you'd like to say that explosives are the only possible explanation. But again, you're guessing.

Here's some original MSM footage that clearly shows flashes of explosives
and pieces of debris falling from the building.

It's a 2 hour video, but feel free to move the cursor to the 1:30 minute
marker and watch for about two minutes:

www.documentarywire.com...

I don't suppose these bright flashes happening are from trapped victims
taking snap shots with cameras 'huh'?

Also watch at 5:31 on the North Tower **upper left corner of the video**
you will see several explosions and black jets of smoke appear as soon
as the 'aircraft' hits the South tower.

9/11 = inside job.

The towers were destroyed with explosives. This video; the photos; the
rate of collapse; eye witness testimony; the thermite paper; etc. PROVE it!

Like I said before, denying this proof makes you disinfo, stubborn, and/or
in denial.


[edit on 23-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why do you claim it necessary for it to be anything faster? Are you saying that a forklift, since it's slower, couldn't break down the door since it's too slow?

Something like that. An overpressure's force is already directly related to its velocity. So a slower velocity detonation is already implying something about the nature of the force that's going to be applied. Just like trying to light something with a temperature that is too low, even if you have plenty of heat uniform at a temperature just below the threshold, it still won't accomplish anything.

Imagine you have a piece of steel, like the door contained. Now imagine you can hit it with however much total force from air pressure you would like, but the catch is, the air can't exceed 2000 ft/s at any one point. If 2000 ft/s can't hurt steel in any one particular place (which it can't, trust me, or we can talk about it, either way) then it won't hurt it like that anywhere.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Imagine you have a piece of steel, like the door contained. Now imagine you can hit it with however much total force from air pressure you would like, but the catch is, the air can't exceed 2000 ft/s at any one point. If 2000 ft/s can't hurt steel in any one particular place (which it can't, trust me, or we can talk about it, either way) then it won't hurt it like that anywhere.

You DO understand what I'm saying, correct?

The op only needs to break the hinges on the door and set it free.

Whatever remaining velocity/energy that is left flings the door, and the door is damaged during its collision.

The op doesn't need to do the crumpling.

Understand?

2 parts?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You DO understand what I'm saying, correct?

The op only needs to break the hinges on the door and set it free.

So you've somehow already determined that the explosion didn't crumple the door up, it only broke its hinges. Can I be informed as to how you determined that?

Whatever remaining velocity/energy that is left flings the door, and the door is damaged during its collision.

The op doesn't need to do the crumpling.

Understand?

Do you understand the law of conservation of energy? Even if the explosion doesn't crumple the door upon reaching it, the energy the door has upon impact to a floor or wall or whatever is also completely dependent upon the energy it received from the explosion. So the explosion would still have to do the exact same amount of work. I'm still not seeing it, again, when you are limited to a pressure wave that can't even pierce the skin on my hand. I'm not sure why you are so determined to even try to prove this is possible. Out of all the things it could have been, why must you insist on it being a slow-moving fireball? Just because that's what all the other "debunkers" are saying, so it must be right so you better say it too?

Pecoraro never says the door was launched into a wall or anything of that nature, either, just that it was crumpled up like a piece of foil.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I don't know. Do you? It seems that you'd like to say that explosives are the only possible explanation. But again, you're guessing.

I don't want to get into this debate. But I suggest looking at things that are either known to have happened or might have been documented in the initial minutes. Heating and cooling units, electrical generators and other systems, machines controlling air circulation and purification, a dedicated air conditioning, were housed in the basement levels. Short circuiting and overloads would easily account for explosions.

Notably reporters and cameramen were in the lobby within minutes taking pictures of firemen setting up equipment. No one noted any undue explosion or fallout thereof. Hundreds of photos and footage.

Mike

[edit on 23-7-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Again with electrical explosions, but I see still no explanation as to what exactly would cause such a massive electrical explosion. Only one thing causes transformer explosions, etc.: massively overloading the current, without any of the breakers or other safety mechanisms working. It would be one hell of a coincidence, or deliberate sobtage.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Notably reporters and cameramen were in the lobby within minutes taking pictures of firemen setting up equipment. No one noted any undue explosion or fallout thereof. Hundreds of photos and footage.

Let's see some of it.

Maybe start with these from the Naudet brothers showing the lobby windows blown out:





"...it was obvious something had happened right there in the lobby."

"You just saw that all the windows were blown out."

Police officer William Walsh's testimony of entering the lobby:

[Lt. Walsh:] What I observed as I was going through these doors and I got into the lobby of the World Trade Center was that the lobby of the Trade Center didn't appear as though it had any lights.

All of the glass on the first floor that abuts West Street was blown out. The glass in the revolving doors was blown out. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out.

The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It's about two or three inches thick. They're about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Wait a second.

(Interruption.)

[Walsh:] What else I observed in the lobby was that -- there's basically two areas of elevators. There's elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that's facing north. Then on the right-hand side there's also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That's where the service elevator was also.

[B.C. Congiusta:] Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren't side lobby elevators?

[Walsh:] No, no, I'd say that they went through floors 30 and below

[B.C. Congiusta:] And they were blown off?

[Walsh:] They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway.

www.nytimes.com...


Get all of that? Good.


Then there is the actual testimony to the basement explosions, which all comes from people who worked at the WTC because they were timed to coincide with the plane impacts so no first responders had arrived yet. Those are Mike Pecoraro, Philip Morelli, William Rodriguez and a number of his co-workers, off the top of my head.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Again with electrical explosions, but I see still no explanation as to what exactly would cause such a massive electrical explosion. Only one thing causes transformer explosions, etc.: massively overloading the current, without any of the breakers or other safety mechanisms working. It would be one hell of a coincidence, or deliberate sobtage.

[...]

Then there is the actual testimony to the basement explosions, which all comes from people who worked at the WTC because they were timed to coincide with the plane impacts so no first responders had arrived yet. Those are Mike Pecoraro, Philip Morelli, William Rodriguez and a number of his co-workers, off the top of my head.

Again, not wanting to engage in a discussion that has probably been done on a hundred threads just on this forum.

No one can make conclusive statements about what would or wouldn't be normal in the unusual circumstances in mega complex building just hit by a plane with burning fuel running through it.

Combinations of system failures, electrical shorting, pressurized equipment exploding, coolants or inflammables that should be circulating in various systems centralized in the basements.

I doubt anyone could account for every anomaly given the rapid fire pace of events and the later devastation of the lower floor forensic evidence in the collapses.


Mike





[edit on 23-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by bsbray11

So you've somehow already determined that the explosion didn't crumple the door up, it only broke its hinges. Can I be informed as to how you determined that?

Do you understand the law of conservation of energy? Even if the explosion doesn't crumple the door upon reaching it, the energy the door has upon impact to a floor or wall or whatever is also completely dependent upon the energy it received from the explosion.

Where did I say it absolutely didn't? I said that it didn't have to. Anything else you choose to read into that statement is your own doing.

Yes I do. Once again, and I'll just throw numbers out there to illustrate the research that you COULD do if you're so inclined..... if the op reaches 1psi on a door that has appx 2600 sq in, at a velocity of just 500 ft/s - or 340 mph (1/3 your guess) then the door "sees" 2600 lbs of pressure against it. Some of that total energy will be used in breaking the hinges. The rest will be used to propel the door. That's why you should do the math. None is in evidence. Personal incredulity, however, is in abundance.

So once agin, as I originally stated, how does the TM get from a door got crumpled up, to that being proof of bombs, when you haven't done the research?

What is so hard about that?